Eolas approached Microsoft with the patent, and Microsoft said, screw
off.
Eolas filed suit in Feb 1999.
After 4 years of Microsoft's lawyers doing their thing...here we are.
The facts don't seem to support your position.
--
jon
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Friday, November 14, 2003, 1:37:27 PM, you wrote:
JD> My problem is centered in a legally nebulous area: why now?
JD> Eolas has had this patent for what, 10 years? It's inconceivable that
JD> they didn't know about the web or plug-ins until just recently. They
JD> waited until they felt MS was over a barrel and then hit them with it,
JD> They could have done this with IE or Netscape 2.0 - but they waited.
JD> It's the same feelings people had about the GIF patent: you waited until
JD> it was in use by everybody to let us know this you bastards? It may be
JD> good business but you can't help but consider them a little sleazy for
JD> it.
JD> I don't like the idea of people being able to sit on the sidelines,
JD> watching a business grow massive and then slapping them with
JD> infringement when they've gotten too big to switch gears. I understand
JD> in most cases claims are made as soon as the patent holder is aware of
JD> the infringement - but in these cases how could they now know? And if
JD> the anwer is "they forgot they had that patent" then screw'em - they
JD> missed their chance.
JD> In other words if the patent holder doesn't immediately recognize
JD> infringement then the idea couldn't have meant much to them. ;^)
JD> Jim Davis
JD> -----Original Message-----
JD> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
JD> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 5:27 AM
JD> To: CF-Community
JD> Subject: Re: Validity of Eolas Patent To Be Reexamined
JD> I sort of suspected it might be. Assuming however that this is *not* in
JD> fact a case of patenting prior art, I have a sneaking sympathy for
JD> Eolas,
JD> as long as they don't abuse the patent. This whole rush to discredit
JD> them
JD> sort of reminds me of "of course we won the election, why recount" and
JD> "of
JD> course there are WMD in Iraq and those people are just unpatriotic
JD> naysayers..."
JD> Of course maybe my native cynicism is coloring my view of this....
JD> Dana
JD> Jim Davis writes:
>> I think it's more complex than that: Eolas has said (but obviously
JD> never
>> put the matter to the test) in some circles that they wouldn't license
>> to MS. However the purpose of a company is to make money so. They've
>> claimed that they want to hold this over MS in an effort to bring back
>> competition to the web. of course what they've really done is make
>> people worried about building new browsers. I mean if you can't even
>> build a browser to a public spec without a lawyer on staff why bother?
>>
>> In any case forgetting the fact that MS could afford to pay any
>> reasonable fee I would chafe at it if I were them as well. Since
>> they've found a semi-transparent (at least to the user) work-around I
>> would probably thumb my nose at Eolas as well.
>>
>> Jim Davis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 3:00 AM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: Re: Validity of Eolas Patent To Be Reexamined
>>
>> yanno... I was just wondering about this. Instead of working around
JD> the
>> patent, why not just pay Eolas? Have they set an unreasonable price?
>>
>> genuinely curious,
>> Dana
>>
>> Jim Davis writes:
>>
>> > Well, all I can say is I'm glad Berners-Lee is head of the W3C and
JD> not
>> > you. ;^)
>> >
>> > He, at least, seems to think this is an issue for the W3C to be
>> involved
>> > in. and I think I'll take his word for it, if nothing else.
>> >
>> > Jim Davis
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 2:46 PM
>> > To: CF-Community
>> > Subject: Re: Validity of Eolas Patent To Be Reexamined
>> >
>> > Why does the addition of the optional parameter really even matter
>> > when there are already more non-standard parameters on the object
JD> tag
>> > than I have fingers in IE? The object tag spec does not mention, or
>> > infer in any way how the ua is supposed to react to an embeded media
>> > type that just so happens to use data from an outside source.
>> >
>> > Please show me the place in the spec that conflicts in any way with
JD> a
>> > popup being displayed when a proprietary media/file type is loaded
>> > via the object tag.
>> >
>> > --
>> > jon
>> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 2:22:41 PM, you wrote:
>> > SC> I fail to see your point.
>> > SC> The Eolas patent doesn't specifically cover flash, etc. It deals
>> > with how
>> > SC> HTML deals with these items and that is specifically a web
>> > standards issue.
>> >
>> >
>> > >>From CNET news:
>> >
>> >
>> > SC> http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5106129.html
>> >
>> >
>> > SC> "Specifically, the consortium pointed out early HTML drafts by
JD> W3C
>> > Director
>> > SC> Tim Berners-Lee and W3C staff member Dave Raggett that it said
>> > qualified as
>> > SC> prior art in the case."
>> >
>> > SC> A copy of the letter written to the patent office may be found
>> here.
>> > SC> http://www.w3.org/2003/10/27-rogan.html
>> >
>> > SC> _____
>> >
>> > SC> From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > SC> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 1:50 PM
>> > SC> To: CF-Community
>> > SC> Subject: Re: Validity of Eolas Patent To Be Reexamined
>> >
>> > SC> Oh the irony...how exactly do flash, quicktime, windows media,
>> > applets,
>> > SC> etc, have anything to do with web standards?
>> >
>> > SC> My letter to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> > SC> "Seeing as WASP is a pro-standards organization, why are you
JD> glad
>> to
>> > SC> see the reexamination of the Eolas patent?
>> >
>> > SC> The the patent workarounds in IE could do much to lower the
JD> usage
>> of
>> > SC> non-standard file formats on the web, which seems to me to be
JD> more
>> > SC> inline with WASP's goals than your current stance, which the
JD> only
>> > SC> justification for I can think of is the addition of a
JD> non-standard
>> > SC> parameter to the object tag in IE, which seems hardly worth
>> worrying
>> > SC> about in the grander scheme of things."
>> >
>> > SC> Personally I don't really care, but WASP does seem to be out of
>> line
>> > SC> with their mission statement to me.
>> >
>> >
>> > _____
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _____
>>
>>
>>
JD> _____
JD>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
